Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Escalating Nuclear Reactor Costs Seen In Major Reversals For Industry On Wall Street And In Texas, …

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:45 PM
Original message
Escalating Nuclear Reactor Costs Seen In Major Reversals For Industry On Wall Street And In Texas, …
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/071309%20Cooper%20n...

COOPER: ESCALATING NUCLEAR REACTOR COSTS SEEN IN MAJOR REVERSALS FOR INDUSTRY ON WALL STREET AND IN TEXAS, CANADA

Ratings Warning From Moody’s Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency.

WASHINGTON, D.C.///July 13, 2009///Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the “The Economics of Nuclear Reactors,” a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

Available online at
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_C...
_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” at the beginning of this decade – a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the “Great Bandwagon Market” of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:
  • On June 30, 2009, Exelon cited “economic woes” as a major factor in postponing for up to 20 years plans to build two nuclear reactors at its site in Victoria, Texas. (See http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/30/gs_exe... for local coverage of the decision.)

  • On June 29, 2009, the Government of Ontario announced that it has suspended the competitive bidding process to procure two replacement nuclear reactors planned for a Darlington, Ontario site. As the New York Times reported: “Two years into a $20 billion nuclear upgrade project meant to replace aging reactors with next-generation technology, the Ontario government postponed the entire process on Monday, citing excessive cost and uncertainties involving the ownership status of the sole Canadian bidder ... Yesterday’s move is a setback for the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the 57-year-old government-owned corporation that has built all of Canada’s reactors and could soon be
    sold off to a private investor.” (See http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/ontario-pu... -
    nuclear-expansion-plans-on-ice/.)

  • On June 23, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services issued a report titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing.” The summary to the report included the following: “Moody's is considering “taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants ... Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk ... most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative. First federal approvals are at least two years away, and economic, political and policy equations could easily change before then ...” Cooper pointed out that even though Moody’s concludes that reactors might be financially viable once operating, the barriers to actual permitting and affordable construction may make it impossible to reach the operational new-plant phase. See the report summary at http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/moodys/PBC_1178... and a related news story at http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200... .

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Really? How about we just check the Solar Buzz website for costs?
One doesn't even need to appeal to an article by a dumb journalist to do direct calculation.

www.solarbuzz.com

Of course, one would need to be able to do math, and understand that the capacity utilization of a solar plant is about 20%, whereas a nuclear plant runs greater than 90% reliability.

In, um, economics, capacity utilization matters which is why the solar energy scam always announces capacity in peak "watts" rather than in units of energy.

Economics, of course, accounts for the fact that nuclear power produces more energy than all of the renewable energy programs combined, at least if one can understand - as many fundie anti-nukes still can't, that um, 8.455 is actully greater than 0.091.

Given that the solar industry has experience 50 years of unrestrainged cheering - mostly of course from people who cannot appreciate either the contents of a math book or a science book - and nuclear power has been routinely vilified by the same damn airheads, it is difficult to understand why nuclear power is, um, 92 times better at producing energy.

What I can gather is that the anti-nukes are here to announce, with their usual sense of reality, that what was routinely accomplished in the 1960's is now impossible.

No surprise there, of course.

I wonder what you have to smoke to become an anti-nuke. Never mind, I really don't want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why do you use solar / renewables to "refute" that nuclear cannot compete with fossil?
Really. Your whole post has no relevance, because solar is not competing with nuclear, it's fossil fuels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. oh nnadir, your side show antics amuse us all! :)
please keep the comedy coming, you never fail to entertain!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Man oh man you are a one seriously demented person
My question to you is why do you continue to show your ass here with the shit you type? The late night posts of yours I read as alcohol induced so I guess these morning ignorant replys is due to the hangover, is that correct???
My advice is, get a life dude. The etoh will kill you just as certain as a car running over your drunk ass will.
Have a good day otherwise :-)
If I can become a non-drunk then anyone can do it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC